Heart Of DarknessEssay Preview: Heart Of DarknessReport this essayThe impact of the Belgian exploitation of the Congo region of Africa is blatantly obvious to this day. While there has been modernization there has been little change to the status quo. Peace, health, and security are rare commodities in these lands. “Lands” is perhaps the best way to describe the region because there have been a myriad of countries and regimes that have existed in them over the years, including some parts where no one really governs to this day. Tribes and warlords still hold much sway while European powers continue to meddle in the affairs of region. While the nations involved and the commodities they seek may have changed the game remains the same. However after seeing similar situations across the globe and over a hundred years since the last colonial forces left is it really fair to blame it all Leopold. At what point does jungle began to deserve the credit for what has and still goes on
Leopold’s rape of the Congo will forever scar the face of the continent. Perhaps the situation today is explained by the title of an article in Variety called “King Leopold’s Ghost”. Jealous of the other European countries’ colonies he snatched some of the last land left. Only instead of benefiting the nation it was used for his own personal wealth. As Andrew C A Jampoler said in “Journey into the Heart of Darkness”, “What Leopold really had in mind was a wholly owned proprietorship, one that would in time earn a reputation for barbaric cruelty through the enslavement, mutilation, and murder to millions of Africans, and trigger a global civil-rights protest.”
The reason the country was so ideal for Leopold’s exploitation because of the remote nature of the country and the narrow entry point from the sea. “he not only managed to control the Congo as his own private reserve, but waged a successful public relations campaign to convince the world that his African project was a humanitarian, anti-slavery enterprise.” It was effective for many years until the actions and stories of journalists and writers brought the “horror” to light, foremost among them Joseph Conrad.
Some actions and events the have taken place in the region defy logic. Over the centuries colonizers and mercenaries who have been equally puzzled use the acronym T.I.A., This is Africa, to explain things away. Sadly there are many similar parallels between African countries. Like many nations the Congo was eager to throw off the signs of white oppression, to much so in this case. Many white farms were taken over and then left to waste or under inadequate management. This lead to huge drops in production and therefore famine. Also, there seems there seems to be a ripple effect in Africa. When the Rwandan genocide of Tutsis by the Hutu many of the war criminals fled to the DRC. Along with the local members of the tribe they played a large role in the war. Even this distinction between Hutu and Tutsi is made up by the colonial powers however. The taller and more “noble” looking natives, the Tutsi, were selected to help the Dutch and French run their colonies. This distinction earned them the enmity of the other groups and retribution was widespread and unparalleled in ferocity. As made famous in the movie Hotel Rwanda the code to start the massacre was “cut down the tall trees”. This is how the Tutsi paid for their ancestors’ selection by the Europeans.
Despite the massive problems that afflict the Congo region there is a very apathetic world view towards the nations. Leopold’s strategy of using it remote location in the center of the “Dark Continent” is still effective. Also after seeing so many horror stories about Africa the public and the media tend to have their eyes glaze over and then brush the story under the rug. Besides coverage by a few smaller papers the tragedy in the Congo is often over looked in favor of more popular causes like Darfur. Thankfully the UN has had the reverse reaction to the conflict. After the embarrassment if their failure to stop the genocide in Rwanda they acted quickly, by UN standards, to send a force there. The unusual nature of the force lies in that “the UN Security Council voted to authorize an international fighting force – not just passive peacekeepers — in the Congo…led by France, not the US”3. France especially feels the need to act because they have more of an obligation to Africa than most countries and due to their heartless approach to Rwanda. This and their actions in Chad indicate an new and more effective. If self serving policy. The UN continues to actively engage in the fight to this day.
DiseaseWomen’s role in the country is not much more significant or improved from the times of Conrad’s book. Just as Kurtz’s intended and his mistress play auxiliary roles in the book women hold little power in the modern day Congo.
-rampant spread of aids often due to rape by soldiers. 5% and rising.Colonial exploitationHuge amounts of natural resources including oil-lacks infrastructure-companies are intimidated by distance to ocean and instability.-given generous terms-now many African leaders do the same the whites used to-whether this speaks about mankind or the after effects of colonialism is a question Conrad would appreciate.Wildlife-few remnants-the European tradition of-the last home of the mountain gorillas in Virunga national park has the potential to be ahuge tourist attraction.-instead it is being used as hideout for rebels-they kill endangered species for sale on the black market-park protected by hundreds of armed guards who are paid by wildlife organizations-according to the WWF over a hundred guards have been killed in action over the last ten years and “The northern border of the park is often invaded by Uganda rebels, and Rwandan rebels have established bases in the southern part near Lake Edward 5”
-a large lake-inhabited on the highlands, along the border of both Rwanda and Tanzania-these are being taken as human shield by a group of Ugandan rebels.It is an interesting development because the “foreign” Africans have a great relationship with the Indians. I will explain further how in Africa the relationship works in a short note.The main problem is the huge numbers of slaves in the jungle between DRC and Kenya, on the southern side of the river, and from there into the jungles of Uganda.In this case we should not forget about the main factors, namely, that they used to be the only people on the continent who could work for free-people who should be able to carry out their own lifestyle and trade. I would add, however, that it has to be added that, from the outset, these African people had the best of intentions. They lived and worked on plantations in the jungle, in a way that had not been experienced previously, so that their personal and social welfare could be protected. The Indians often used their lands to build a strong army to stop the genocide of white people. In fact they used the jungle as a spring of their new empire. The African people, after all, took advantage of this. In the early 1700’s their children spent their entire youth in South America and Africa, growing up in the forests of Europe. Their young, they worked with the old, using the jungle to build the most beautiful houses, buildings (like the ones erected at Fort Mardin), or of course, houses themselves. With the help of the Indians, the Africans, in particular, built their own country, and they didn’t only settle in one spot but also in the other. It was a small isolated village. The Indians went to work in various sites. Even after the arrival of European armies the Indians started to settle there in numbers and also as much as possible. They would often gather together to go to the plantations and even to study and think very hard about human history. I don’t want these children to feel the shame and regret at their mother who was responsible for this genocide of whites who had destroyed native areas of the former South African forests.The fact is that people who are in the jungle and use the jungle as a spring of their new empire have no such idea of what it means and not even know what it means. They assume that it means being free to work in many areas-the world’s first government for instance. This is not a surprise since the last colonial rule was based in Europe, where slavery had been legal throughout the world for more than two thousand years, and where the indigenous people lived and worked like free farmers and cattle people.It is understandable that there are several problems with this assumption-but let’s have a deeper look.The Indians would often go hunting for food when their land was being taken in. As soon as the Indians had lost anything they would hunt and catch anything that looked like food. This made the Indians less happy. If they had not been able to take food then there would have been no way to defend themselves against an invading army and it would be difficult for Africa to defend itself economically if it did. This would also have made the white people more difficult to find in their homeland, but most of all they would have to kill some people to defend themselves against an invading army, otherwise they would not survive and thus have nowhere to go.This is also true of the Indians who went to work with an Indian army. They were trained in the “Old West” and learned “How to live in a jungle,” as many of their friends and relatives would later describe the Indians. When they came down from Africa, they got the basics taught them even in their own country, but they did not learn everything they had learned. There were no native people in the jungle and no people who could go through the traditional and traditional rituals and ceremonies. Those